Which leads me to my questions:
Is criminal activity AND attack both necessary to invoke applicability?

When does "following" become "provocation?"

Since the "initial" encounter wasn't an attack does that preclude any defense for a later violent attack? Which means to me that once I become close enough and speak to the perp that I cannot "stand my ground" I need to already have recognized my predicament and retreated or at least not engaged/spoken to him?

Is "fisticuffs" a reasonable response to someone following you?

I do know "fisticuffs" can be deadly. Does it require a trial and jury to define what a reasonable person response to fisticuffs is in every case?

Since this is all based on some very bad reporting, conjecture and even misinformation from the media can anyone except a lawyer with the pertinent [as yet unavailable] information be able to even say it's not applicable?

Lastly, one purported advantage to stand your ground is freedom from civil liability. Since Zimmerman is now charged can he be sued (civilly) and if he should be aquitted will he be once again protected? or do just having the charges brought remove all civil protection (forever)?